What is Digg?16 Comments
- Flashman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think that Young Earth creationists will seize this as support for their arguments. One long-standing question posed to creationists is, "Why would God create light for stars that never existed?"
The creationist retort is, of course, that the speed of light has changed over time. If that's the case, I don't think that means the Earth is 6000 years old... but it's food for thought nonetheless. Any young-earthers want to jump in on this one? - erkokite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I bet this will have interesting implications for theories attempting to unify gravity with other fundamental forces. Many of these theories, such as heim and string theory require extra dimensions, perhaps the extra spatial dimensions mentioned in the article. Either way, I think it will lead to some interesting developments in physics. I hope it does, 'cause I want my reactionless space drive.
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The real question is different relative to what?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1touche salesman
- coolbru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And then what is speed? Distance over time - but if distance and time can't be nailed down either, we have a problem...
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i think its great. how cool to find the universe is more interesting. what if everything was relalative. they've slowed light in lab conditions. time is relative for sure. we look back billions of years. is the universe really there and in the same state as when that light left billions of years ago? i was reading some thing and lost it before i finished but when i skimmed it seemed like it said that at temperatures approaching absolute zero space becomes 2 D. i wish i could find that. but if you look the other direction at high temps and energies particles blaze right through everything. if what i remember is correct... well thats cool. i wish i got to play with the good toys.
- erkokite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The change exhibited in the constants is very small over a large period of time. 6000 years ago they would have been exactly the same(or only a neglible amount different). The fine structure constant changed only a small amount over 10s of billions of years. The speed of light would not have changed enough over the last 6000 years to make any difference in the arguments of science against YEC.
- erkokite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jumjum
Light does not have mass unless it is moving. It only has relative mass
see here: http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
The only reason light can be slowed in the lab is due to the fact that the light is slowed by loss of energy when it is trapped in a matrix of supercooled atoms. It is my understanding that there are no changes to any fundamental constants. This method only allows light to slow down, not speed it up. It is already a well known fact that light has different maximum velocities in various mediums.
Second order doppler shift has to do with the mossbauer spectrum which is related to radiation emmitted from a solid radioactive material. See here: http://www.cmp.liv.ac.uk/frink/thesis/thesis/node17.html
and here: http://elchem.kaist.ac.kr/vt/chem-ed/spec/material/mossbaue.htm
So SODS is completely irrelevant to the speed of light crossing the near vacuum of space. That is of course, unless outer space one solid chunk of transparent, radioactive, metal...
Gravitational redshift is only relevant when light passes through a gravity well, such as a black hole, planet, star, etc... Once again, irrelevant to light crossing empty space. The gravitational effects of stars are negligible at long distances. Not to mention the fact that they pretty much cancel each other out.
see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Gravitational_redshift
By energy loss shift, I assume you are referring to "Tired Light." "Tired Light" is generally not considered an accurate model of physical phenomena, and to quote wikipedia, "In general, cosmologists consider tired light models to have too many problems to be worth serious consideration."
see here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light
Admittedly, I am no expert on these subjects. I am not a physicist, but a quick search showed that these forms of red shift are not terribly relevant to light crossing empty space from the edge of the universe. - jumjum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A quasar has been found that travels 8 times the speed of light. The speed of light has been slowed, stopped, and even reversed in the lab. It also has weight and can itself push matter, as demonstrated by one side of scales being in darkness, and light shined on the other scale, the lighted side will go down.
I recommend study on the gravitational, second-order Doppler, and energy-loss shifts, all of which evolutionists ignore to propagate the Big Bang and ultimately the old universe theory. - DBCubix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 .joke. Obviously this is because of Global Warming ./joke.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I can't believe that the speed of light used to be different unless you compare the universe to itself over the entire length of the universe. The speed of light would only change immediately after the big bang or immediately before the big crunch. But that's never gonna happen, or has it?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1of course we havent figured everything out yet.. not even close, but that is no reason to dismiss the comment above. A lot of people want the speed of light ot have changed, it would help explain the uniformity of the microwave radation despite the horizons being outside of causal distance
I dont personally believe light speed has changed but i will await and read the new data with an open mind. - Niagara, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We don't know what causes the speed of light to be what it is, but whatever causes it may have changed in the past. That is, if it has a cause and is not an arbitrary constant.
- Merrick015, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the speed of light may have changed over time, but we must realize what speed is: space/time. if space & time are two components of the same thing, then this suggests that c is actually unitless and = 1. What would have changed is the relationship between the components. it would be stupid to suggest that the "fundementals" as we see them now are so defined.
- deadcellplus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i think it shows that we think we know more then we really would ever be able to understand....
stupid casualty......i mean causality - joejordan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Why not? Given that we've only really been studying the universe for 100 earth years, what makes you think that we've figured out 17 billion+ years of creation in such a short time? As we gain new knowledge of the universe we live in, we revise our understanding of existence itself. It would be extremely naive for us to believe we've figured everything out already.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is